After hearing Huawei talk about their interest in buying Nokia and WP being too expensive, I wonder, why MS doesn't kill their licensing fee? It just seems like it would be an easy way to have more OEMs jump on board and flood the market with more handsets. Correct me if I am wrong, but Firefox and Ubuntu will be free to license when they are ready for distribution. I can see OEMs favoring these handsets which in turn will make things even harder for MS down the road.

If this continues to be a problem I really think the only solution would be a MS buyout of Nokia and MS becoming the sole maker of handsets for WP.

After hearing Huawei talk about their interest in buying Nokia and WP being too expensive, I wonder, why MS doesn't kill their licensing fee? It just seems like it would be an easy way to have more OEMs jump on board and flood the market with more handsets. Correct me if I am wrong, but Firefox and Ubuntu will be free to license when they are ready for distribution. I can see OEMs favoring these handsets which in turn will make things even harder for MS down the road.

If this continues to be a problem I really think the only solution would be a MS buyout of Nokia and MS becoming the sole maker of handsets for WP.

No, they shouldn't, licensing is the primary way that MS make money. Firefox OS and Ubuntu for Phones will be free because they are open source.

From what I understand, I don't get Huawei's claim of the licensing fee being too expensive. First, OEMs are paying Microsoft to use Android. So let's get real - Android is not free. Then, on top of that, Microsoft shields OEMs from patent claims if they're using Windows Phone OS, where Google leaves them hanging to defend their own patent violation claims. So while I don't know how much the licensing fee actually is (I'd heard something like $10 or $15 per device a couple years ago, but I have no idea whether that was accurate or just speculation), I'm not seeing the licensing of the OS as a huge hurdle for manufacturers. Attitude is the biggest hurdle for them right now, IMO.

From what I understand, I don't get Huawei's claim of the licensing fee being too expensive. First, OEMs are paying Microsoft to use Android. So let's get real - Android is not free. Then, on top of that, Microsoft shields OEMs from patent claims if they're using Windows Phone OS, where Google leaves them hanging to defend their own patent violation claims. So while I don't know how much the licensing fee actually is (I'd heard something like $10 or $15 per device a couple years ago, but I have no idea whether that was accurate or just speculation), I'm not seeing the licensing of the OS as a huge hurdle for manufacturers. Attitude is the biggest hurdle for them right now, IMO.

The Android OS is free but when it comes to installing Google apps manufacturers have to pay. That is how Android makes money. That and the fact that they farm massive amounts of user data to sell to advertisers.

I know WP7 licensing fee was around $15. Not sure what it is for WP8 but that price factors into forming the OEM's attitude.

The Android OS is free but when it comes to installing Google apps manufacturers have to pay. That is how Android makes money. That and the fact that they farm massive amounts of user data to sell to advertisers.

Indeed, the core OS is open source and free... but it uses patents owned by Microsoft, so to sell it you have to pay MS unless you want to get sued, plus like you said the Google services aren't free.

You can say Android being free is a myth, in order it for it to work and offer up the experience people expect, the phone companies have to pay licensing fees.

The Android OS is free but when it comes to installing Google apps manufacturers have to pay. That is how Android makes money. That and the fact that they farm massive amounts of user data to sell to advertisers.

I know WP7 licensing fee was around $15. Not sure what it is for WP8 but that price factors into forming the OEM's attitude.

You've missed the fact that Android OEMs also pay Microsoft for licensing of Microsoft's patents that are included in Android - patents that Google won't defend if the OEM is sued, where if the tables were turned, and they were using WP, Microsoft will defend patent claims against the OS.

You've missed the fact that Android OEMs also pay Microsoft for licensing of Microsoft's patents that are included in Android - patents that Google won't defend if the OEM is sued, where if the tables were turned, and they were using WP, Microsoft will defend patent claims against the OS.

I agree. MS makes money off of Android but that doesn't help push WP. I'm looking at this from the view that MS needs to push handsets and they need to do it now. Once Ubuntu, Jolla, and Firefox hit that low end market is going to be flooded with a lot of different devices. If MS doesn't have a significant lead by then it will makes things that much more difficult for them.

I agree. MS makes money off of Android but that doesn't help push WP. I'm looking at this from the view that MS needs to push handsets and they need to do it now. Once Ubuntu, Jolla, and Firefox hit that low end market is going to be flooded with a lot of different devices. If MS doesn't have a significant lead by then it will makes things that much more difficult for them.

Microsoft has been subsidizing Nokia with millions (billions?) of dollars a year for the last couple of years for this very reason.